🥌 x FOR
↳ benbodhi.eth

Throwing weight behind zero weight votes with reason.

Happy to pause this. Would be an interesting mechanism, but I don’t feel like we need to be literally burning eth right now.

Poll failed to meet quorum (currently 32 total votes).

FOR - 26 VOTES

AGAINST - 1 VOTES

ABSTAINS - 3 VOTES

I still believe that there’s an important distinction between implementing The Burn and auditing The Burn, but I respect the team’s decision here if they want to halt the audit

sent from voter.wtf

https://www.lilnouns.wtf/vote/nounsdao/442/votes

FOR 598 VOTES
0x2eE0485f71764bcD2062A84d9455688c581B90f8 | "Why, sometimes I've voted as many as six times before breakfast."

AGAINST 0 VOTES

ABSTAINS 62 VOTES
0x9e0e9D25a5ED9bc773f91691f0b45599255257B1 | "I'll only vote on proposals that require explanations once the proposer attends our weekly calls to explain them.
"

I appreciate the Burn as a new DAO concept and something Nouns or another onchain organization can use when required. I agree with pausing it for now.

Let's do that!

I still think it could be interesting to explore/test an initially-anchored fork-value per Noun based on each auction price. So initial set fork-value can never exceed original auction price for that Noun. This removes immediate arb, then could improve upon it like below.

Fork-value can be variable with a vote-to-change function so a Noun's fork-price could be increased; e.g. if they were deemed a great contributor by the DAO but had won the auction at a lower-than-currentBV price, they could ask for their Noun to have a f-p upgrade. In my mind this adds a "skilling" element to the game of Nouns and could encourage people to build with their Noun. Imagine a Level 99 Noun gets 99% of currentBV whereas a Level 30 Noun only got 30%, but has the ability to become a 99.

Just sharing random thoughts as is somewhat relevant to this and anchoring value wasn't mentioned in the arb analysis post.

Also prefer charitable donation over burn fwiw.

That the Burn had consensus (even if it later lost it) and effectively pulled forward spending and, in conjunction with the terrible strategic mistake to lower RQ to 10%, accelerated the leaking of ETH out of the DAO by thousands of ETH or more and cost even more members of the community who looked at those decision and said "No mas."

Because we were and are bullish ETH, it was another own goal to pull forward selling ETH before it ran up 30%. Time was on our side. It's not too late to let something that is a shared belief of Nouns DAO benefit the DAO.

Slowing down and thinking long term on how to build a community and culture people positively want to pay to belong to remains crucial. Otherwise all of this is a waste of time and the treasury is a a medium term path to zero one way or another.

Expected future return on capital invested ($ or social, perceived or real) must be > investment

Why would someone pay to join this DAO right now and not just to arb it? Why would they pay to join the DAO in the future? Is the number they'd pay greater or lower than 4.20 ETH in your head? What's your number and why?

Agree with this approach and glad to see us move away from the burn as an option.

📚 the learn